THE SUPREME COURT YESTERDAY expressed concern over the prolonged pendency of trial proceedings against advocate Surendra Gadling in the 2016 Surjagarh iron ore mine arson case and asked the Maharashtra government whether a person could be kept in custody as an undertrial for several years.
A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi questioned Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for Maharashtra, on the reasons for the delay. “Why is the trial not going on, and for how many years can a person be kept in custody without trial?” the bench asked.
Raju said that the delay was not due to the prosecution but because of Gadling himself, stating that he had filed a discharge application but refused to argue it unless allowed to be physically present in Court. Physical production was not possible due to security concerns, he added.
The Court adjourned the matter and directed the state to file a statement explaining the reasons for the delay, how the prosecution intended to proceed, and the time it would take to conclude the trial.
Raju said that the delay was not due to the prosecution but because of Gadling himself.
The bench was hearing Gadling’s bail plea arising from the Bombay High Court’s January 31, 2023 order refusing him bail. The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court had held that prima facie, the accusations against him were true.
Gadling is accused of aiding Maoists who allegedly set ablaze 76 vehicles transporting iron ore from the Surjagarh mines on December 25, 2016. According to the prosecution, he conspired with co-accused and absconding persons, provided secret information and maps to underground Maoists, and instigated locals to oppose mining operations.
He has been booked under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Indian Penal Code.